Coca Cola modified and replaced their flagship product with a better product. It was proven to be statistically better in taste tests. But the product "new coke" ultimately became a failure.
"In retrospect, some marketers believe that the failure of New Coke may have had something to do with sensation transference, a human oddity first described by Louis Cheskin in the 1940s. Cheskin demonstrated that people will unconsciously associate imagery, sounds, tastes, aromas, and textures into their general impression of a product, even if such associations are unintended or inaccurate. These sensory inputs create a halo effect which actually modifies flavor perception, so while cola drinkers may have preferred the new Coke formula, they may have disliked the “taste” of the redesigned packaging. Even Gay Mullins —the man who tried to sue to restore the old flavor —showed a preference for New Coke when subjected to blind taste tests"
I wouldn't be surprised if windows UI/UX designers used statistics to verify the improvements of the windows UI changes. Despite this, consumer psychology always has a way of causing literally almost every major change to any popular product (that is on par with coca cola) be a "debacle" of epic proportions. I see it on every change to OSX, iOS, windows... all consumers are always flabbergast declaring out loud: "What were they thinking!??"
You guys remember when touch screen keyboards were a "debacle"? Nobody could type on that shit back then. It was a royal fuck up. Now everybody types on them.
Inevitably there will be someone who replies to me insisting that it's worse due to some personal yet convincing anecdotal experience. But until you take the UI equivalent of a blind taste test I'm not sure if this is sensation transference or an actual real rational judgement.
You have absolutely no evidence that any UX study was done in the Microsoft case, or what the results would have been. So you're just talking nonsense. Especially considering that the new design is objectively worse.
Just look at the laughably bad screenshots floating around. They all show a giant desktop, with a taskbar that's 70% empty space, with no option to actually use that space now that apps are force combined. Looks pretty, but dogshit user experience.
Did I claim Microsoft did such a study? No. I fucking didn't. Read my reply to the user @picture. I'll post a snippet:
"Did Microsoft do this type of test before release their OS? I think so... but I'm not 100% sure. Are consumers using these metrics when decrying the UI changes??? I am 100% sure the answer is NO... they are not."
Basically what I'm saying here is that your opinion is complete and utter dog shit unless you have metrics to back it up. You obviously don't, so my point still stands.
Gay Mullins literally stated that new coke tasted like dog shit. I see a parallel here.
Also I did say this:
"Inevitably there will be someone who replies to me insisting that it's worse due to some personal yet convincing anecdotal experience. But until you take the UI equivalent of a blind taste test I'm not sure if this is sensation transference or an actual real rational judgement. "
That quote above is referring to you. I saw it coming because it's so typical.
You directly suggested that Microsoft did UX testing, with no evidence whatsoever. Then you built your entire argument on that fantasy situation, and criticize anyone who calls you out on it.
How about instead of talking about some cola story from 30 years ago, you present some actual data for the current issue?
I never suggested anything of the sort nor did I imply it. That suggestion was made up by your imagination as my quote was stated before your reply.
My argument is simply this, people can be biased, it's worth it to consider it. That's it. You interpreted as an attack.
I criticize no one. I usually am very amicable on my replies but you literally came at me with a knife calling my argument nonsense. If your response was more mature then mine would be less harsh.
Also why does my argument need data? I made no such claim that the windows UI is better. My claim is that it could be better and that people are biased. The whole point is for people to examine their own biases, and reconsider this thread from a context where you are aware of your own biases.
Looks like for your situation your biases are so ingrained you took it as an attack on your identity. For you the windows UI has to be shit... Otherwise your foundational identity of Microsoft as a corporate clown/villain crumbles.
Objectively, Your argument needs data. You make an extraordinary claim. Give data or your argument is nonsensical.
Check the job description. It implies Microsoft is data driven in their UX research. The incentive exists as this is a multi billion dollar product. It is very very reasonable to say that every UI change Microsoft proposes requires data given that they hire "researchers" for this.
I'm also guessing that Microsoft is aware that there will be backlash against UI changes. It happens every time. What also happens is the animosity against these changes dies down with time. Microsoft of course very likely makes these changes fully aware of this pattern of human behavior.
> I never suggested anything of the sort nor did I imply it. That suggestion was made up by your imagination as my quote was stated before your reply.
Ah, classic backpedaling now that youve been called out. Good show.
> literally came at me with a knife
I dont think you know what "literally" means.
> What also happens is the animosity against these changes dies down with time.
You seem to approach this subject with the idea that Microsoft is right, and has been right in past situations like this. This is just factually wrong, see for examples repeated OS design failure in Windows Vista, Windows 8, Windows 11. Microsoft has made some excellent products, such as Windows 7 and Windows 10. To assume that every situation like this is just "oh the users are crying, they will realize how good this is" over time is just condescending, and false.
>Ah, classic backpedaling now that youve been called out. Good show.
I never backpedaled. I literally said that quote was MADE before you even responded. The "show" is in your delusional imagination.
>I dont think you know what "literally" means.
Who cares. I obviously meant, Figuratively. But your immature attitude makes it seem literal.
>You seem to approach this subject with the idea that Microsoft is right, and has been right in past situations like this
You seem to have an imagination and you like to make up my opinions. I never said this. All I am saying and I repeat, is that we as users have been wrong before and we could be wrong again. That our biases influence our judgment.
This is not to say that we're wrong now, or that we've been wrong all the time before. It is SAYING that we need to pause and consider our biases BEFORE we jump to a conclusion.
>To assume that every situation like this is just "oh the users are crying, they will realize how good this is" over time is just condescending, and false.
This was never assumed. It was simply stated that it is a possibility. A realistic possibility because it has happened before and it can happen again.
Saying that I am condescending when all I am doing is bringing up cautionary advice to bring awareness to our own biases is the sort of witch hunting practices nobody needs on HN. You embody bias, you embody hostility and you embody the type of principles that run against all science.
Was my original post condescending? No. Was your reply condescending insulting and offensive? Yes.
people really should stop using the "peoples gonna whine at every change" as a cop out for shitty job. Yeah that will happen, everytime, even when the changes are shitty
Except I personally don't really see shitty changes here.
Literally every UI change to every major UI product ingrained in out culture labeled as a UI travesty. It happens every single time. Look back a decade or so, it's so predictable. I saw an article like this coming from a mile away.
Still your argument could be valid. It just needs data to back it up. (I'm not making an argument either way... Just pointing out the biases)
Once you are aware of "Fitts' law" and "Chesterson's Fence" it is easy to see the new design as amateur hour. As GP mentions, yes also folks hate change, but you are a bit too eager to dismiss valid complaints.
Finally we are software dev "makers" here for the most part, not non-technical consumers who need retraining for a button move.
____
Edit: I'm not allowed to post "so fast" so to the below:
Sorry, this (below) is just a silly reply. Black is white and white is black, amirite?
It's obvious not all the use cases are handled in the new design, it's a trivial, elementary observation.
What I mentioned above were the result of decades of studies. If you think some random designer has better study data (in an era where OS investment is down an order of magnitude) I've got a bridge to sell you.
>Finally we are software dev "makers" here for the most part, not non-technical consumers who need retraining for a button move.
Being a software developer doesn't give you some kind of magical brain that makes you better at using a GUI. This is part of what I don't like about our field. The arrogance. As if all other users are 90 year old grandmas who's never touched a computer before.
>Once you are aware of "Fitts' law" and "Chesterson's Fence" it is easy to see the new design as amateur hour.
These "laws" aren't really laws that are data driven. Maybe they are data driven in principle but the windows GUI changes very very likely were made using custom data driven conclusions that can very well go around these "laws." Still it is actually by far much more likely for these laws to simply be "coined" by some random person based off of anecdotal experience.
You should know software developers fall for "laws" all the time. These are not "laws" proven they are just strange anecdotal principles that sound good in theory but are not proven in practice. https://reflectoring.io/laws-and-principles-of-software-deve...
The stupid part is that one of these "laws" is called a "theorem." It shows that many software developers have little understanding between the difference between science and logic. None of those laws in software or design are based off of any sort of science at all (aka not data driven), nor are they based off of logic. They are based off of anecdotal observations, and anecdotal observations are beaten and overridden by logic and science every time. Which, I'm pretty sure, is what Microsoft did here (though without any actual evidence this is just an educated guess on how they approach UI/UX research).
>What I mentioned above were the result of decades of studies.
Show me those studies. I can assure you, that the laws and principles of software development aren't based off of ANY studies. SOLID? No studies. Just an acronym to make it sound better.
Therefore, if software is like this... I highly doubt that these principles in Design were developed out of science at all. Like software they must be anecdotal observations. But happy to be proven wrong.
You could provide me with studies done after these principles were "coined" but that's not what I'm looking for (less convincing). I would want proof that these principles were "developed" based off of analytics.
> If you think some random designer has better study data (in an era where OS investment is down an order of magnitude)
No I'm saying a the random UX researcher likely does research and analytics on a very narrow and exact use case of windows. Those laws your bring up, (if scientifically valid at all) likely refer to an extreme generality. It's like saying all men are taller than women. The generality is true but there are many, many exceptions and corner cases. These laws obviously don't refer to windows, they refer to everything and as a result are only generally right, and not exactly right about everything.
> Those laws your bring up, (if scientifically valid at all) likely refer to an extreme generality. [...] These laws obviously don't refer to windows, they refer to everything and as a result are only generally right, and not exactly right about everything.
If you look up stuff that's referred to in stead of just spewing the first thing that comes into your head, you embarrass yourself a lot less.
If you had looked up Fitt's law, for instance, you'd have known that it says "it's easier to hit the edge of a screen with a mouse pointer than some line in the middle, and far easier to hit a corner than some point in the middle".
Now please explain how this "extreme generality" does not "refer to windows". (It's not like it's a "corner case" (hnyuk, nyuk).)
>"it's easier to hit the edge of a screen with a mouse pointer than some line in the middle, and far easier to hit a corner than some point in the middle"
With widescreens my mouse point never touches an edge. I mean that's a corner case your axiom fails to address. Because human behavior is part of the system you have to use science and data driven methods to determine the best course of action as human behavior can be unpredictable. Axiomatic statements like "it's easier to hit the edge of a screen with a mouse pointer than some line in the middle, and far easier to hit a corner than some point in the middle" are often invalid in the face of human behavior. Axioms and logic are the domain of maths and logic not human behavior. This is another reason why I sort of dismiss these "laws". This attempt to formalize rules as if they're axiomatic when clearly they are not.
>Now please explain how this "extreme generality" does not "refer to windows". (It's not like it's a "corner case" (hnyuk, nyuk).)
Almost every website or UI is a corner case. Even changing the color of the mouse cursor could have chaotic effects. New Coke is the perfect example of this where not even data could accurately predict the outcome... let alone logic.
> With widescreens my mouse point never touches an edge. I mean that's a corner case your axiom fails to address. Because human behavior is part of the system you have to use science and data driven methods to determine the best course of action as human behavior can be unpredictable.
Except this was measured in studies of human behaviour. Only they apparently studied humans who had both mice with acceleration and the intelligence to give the mouse a quick flick to get across even rather large screens.
> Almost every website or UI is a corner case.
A) No.
B) Buy a joke detector.
Now please stop spouting meta bullshit that only shows that you still prefer blathering to actually getting a grasp on what it is you're blathering about. Thank you.
>Except this was measured in studies of human behaviour. Only they apparently studied humans who had both mice with acceleration and the intelligence to give the mouse a quick flick to get across even rather large screens.
Did you address my comment on widescreens? No.
LOL show me these studies.. they need to be replicated dozens and dozens of times because I don't know if you heard, the entire field of human psychology suffers from a replicability crisis so basically all the science and most associated fields related to such human behavior Bull f-ing shit. You know what's an Associated field? UI and UX design.
I bet you that you can't even find the study. The whole thing is just coined based of anecdotal saying of some random ass hole.
>A) No.
No to you.
>B) Buy a joke detector.
I bought one and I'm pointing it at you. It's ringing. That means you're a joke.
>Now please stop spouting meta bullshit that only shows that you still prefer blathering to actually getting a grasp on what it is you're blathering about.
You need to grow a brain. None of what I said is bullshit. It's real. You have no ability to think outside the box and look deeply at your long held beliefs. I am literally telling you that you've been worshipping this UI bullshit for a good chunk of your life.
UX is more of "ease of use" measured by metrics like how quickly is a person able to navigate the UI with minimal help. You can quantify these metrics by creating a UI without the snazzy graphics then time everyone on various tasks. Did Microsoft do this type of test before release their OS? I think so... but I'm not 100% sure. Are consumers using these metrics when decrying the UI changes??? I am 100% sure the answer is NO... they are not.
Nobody is complaining about the "look" of windows 11 just like nobody complained about the "look" of "new coke." But the hypothesis is, is that the "look" of new coke, the "newness" and change to a popular product ingrained in our culture is what triggers people to think that it's worse. For windows people claim that the "ease of use" has been affected. It happens every single time; on every single major UI change to any product ingrained within out culture... the consumer reaction is exactly the same... and that is not a coincidence.
The new Butterfinger reminds me of this. I have no idea how it's affected sales, but the complete redesign of taste and texture has ruined my childhood favorite candy bar.
Good to be aware of your biases. Not many people are self aware enough about themselves to know that something like "packaging" can effect their rationality. Especially here on HN where a lot of people think of themselves as "smart" programmers more intelligent than the rest of the population.
Such an ability allows you to see truth where others delude themselves. But knowing the absolute truth isn't always a good thing, and sometimes you may get attacked for pointing something out.
My understanding of new Coke was that it was sweeter, which made it do better in taste tests in the short term. Today we know how toxic and addictive sugar-laden drinks are, so a sweeter one is not an improvement, but a health hazard. Similarly they could have returned and increased to a tablespoon of cocaine, but we wouldn't be singing its praises.
Eventually we need to get back to sustainable work.
The article has a different understanding of the new coke situation.
The article is also well thought out, thoroughly researched and cites the opinions of marketers at the time. I urge you to read it before overriding it with your one paragraph "understanding" of it.
Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about." I lived thru this era, and was always a fan of Coke's harsher bite in preference to Pepsi's "sugar water" flavor, until I gave them up in preference for diet and later water. Marketing had little influence on me (in that area) then and now, I tried them all including RC and Shasta with an open mind. Was a kid so wasn't obsessed with "the old days" either.
Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion. But it did make me realize MS made the same mistake CC did. They forced their change down everyone's throat. Instead of bringing up Coke II alongside and letting folks try it at their leisure they only shipped one at a time. Perhaps for shelf space reasons, ironic considering in ten years they'd have many, many flavors competing.
I think I've read it before as this was my point above:
"Marketing professionals also noted that New Coke’s success in taste tests may have been due to the small servings offered to tasters. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell points out that such “sip tests” could produce a systemic bias towards sweeter drinks, since small samples would prevent the drinker from reaching the sickly-sweet threshold."
>Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion
Next time read it first before replying. It's not mandatory to read everything here on an HN thread but it's common courtesy that you read it all before you reply. Otherwise you'd be wasting my (and your own) time.
>Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
No I didn't. I took it as you didn't read the article. Which I'm right.
>I think I've read it before as this was my point above:
Agreed. And this point is valid. It supports your assertion. However this does not mean you can dismiss all other assertions, especially the main assertion of the article. Sensation transference. The article brings both points up to be fair and balanced.
The possibility of sensation transference remains open just as the "sickly-sweet threshold." We would need a systematic test to prove it either way. Until then sensation transference remains an open possibility for affecting the opinions of people judging both Windows and New Coke.
I think it would be wise to be aware that none of us our purely rational creatures, and that things that we're sure about should be judged with a healthy amount of skepticism as that judgement is heavily influenced by unknown biases.
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-american-gustation-crisi...
Coca Cola modified and replaced their flagship product with a better product. It was proven to be statistically better in taste tests. But the product "new coke" ultimately became a failure.
"In retrospect, some marketers believe that the failure of New Coke may have had something to do with sensation transference, a human oddity first described by Louis Cheskin in the 1940s. Cheskin demonstrated that people will unconsciously associate imagery, sounds, tastes, aromas, and textures into their general impression of a product, even if such associations are unintended or inaccurate. These sensory inputs create a halo effect which actually modifies flavor perception, so while cola drinkers may have preferred the new Coke formula, they may have disliked the “taste” of the redesigned packaging. Even Gay Mullins —the man who tried to sue to restore the old flavor —showed a preference for New Coke when subjected to blind taste tests"
I wouldn't be surprised if windows UI/UX designers used statistics to verify the improvements of the windows UI changes. Despite this, consumer psychology always has a way of causing literally almost every major change to any popular product (that is on par with coca cola) be a "debacle" of epic proportions. I see it on every change to OSX, iOS, windows... all consumers are always flabbergast declaring out loud: "What were they thinking!??"
You guys remember when touch screen keyboards were a "debacle"? Nobody could type on that shit back then. It was a royal fuck up. Now everybody types on them.
Inevitably there will be someone who replies to me insisting that it's worse due to some personal yet convincing anecdotal experience. But until you take the UI equivalent of a blind taste test I'm not sure if this is sensation transference or an actual real rational judgement.